Windows 7 SP1 beta announced

The first service pack for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 is due to hit public beta next month.

Microsoft has confirmed that Service Pack 1 for Windows 7 is due for release real soon now - and a public beta will be available starting next month.

The news, which according to PCWorld was announced at Microsoft's TechEd event, will come as a blessing to companies that were - quite sensibly - waiting for the first service pack to be released before adopting Windows 7 as an enterprise operating system, allowing others to perform the 'beta' testing of Microsoft's latest OS.

A post on the Windows Team Blog by Gavriella Schuster confirms that the public beta - which covers all versions of Windows 7 along with Windows Server 2008 R2 - will begin next month, but categorically states that there'll be no freebies this time around: in Schuster's words, "SP1 will not contain any new features that are specific to Windows 7 itself[, but] will simply be the combination of updates already available through Windows Update and additional hotfixes based on feedback by our customers and partners."

Although many are likely to be disappointed by the lack of shiny new features in Service Pack 1, it's good news again for the enterprise customers: with no feature creep, there's less for corporate IT departments to test before planning a full roll-out of the update.

The release will be good news for home users, too, offering those who purchase new Windows 7-based hardware the likelihood that it will be fairly up-to-date as soon as they get it out of the box - for a short while, anyway - while offering those who already use Windows 7 an easy way to get their system updated with the latest security patches and bug fixes.

While no official launch date for full version of Windows 7 Service Pack 1 has been announced by Microsoft, a full release is certain before the end of the year.

Are you pleased to see Service Pack 1 heading to the Windows 7 platform, or is it sad that Microsoft feels the need to release a patch bundle so early in the product's life cycle? Have you been keeping your Windows XP system up and running just waiting for Microsoft to make SP1 available, and will the beta be enough to tempt you to upgrade? Share your thoughts over in the forums.

Are you pleased to see Service Pack 1 heading to the Windows 7 platform, or is it sad that Microsoft feels the need to release a patch bundle so early in the product's life cycle?

The sad thing is that Windows 7 was ready for corporates from day 1, but corporates will generally always follow the mantra not to install a new OS prior to SP1, so MS has had to push out a SP as a cosmetic gesture to placate the corporates, when in fact it wasn't really necessary.

I guess you could say MS has made a rod for its own back in this respect - if previous versions of Windows had been as reliable, secure and bug-free out of the box as Windows 7, the "don't buy before SP1" attitude among corporates would probably never have arisen, or at least not to the extent it has.

Originally Posted by JezcentralGreat! The sooner SP1 comes out, the sooner corporate users will jump on board, and we can start to see the end of IE6. (Corporate users being the mainstay of that senile browser).

Senile! What a fantastic descriptor for IE6. I'm going to steal that one.

Why release a service pack of all the released updates, that everyone with a connection to Internet has installed already, and bring it as big news and as a beta? So all the updates that I have installed are all beta's?

Ooh I see it is for convincing the cooperate businesses to install windows 7...

Originally Posted by [USRF]ObiwanWhy release a service pack of all the released update ... as a beta?

I don't get that either. If the service pack really is just a rollup of all the Windows Update patches to date, what's to beta test?

There's more changes/additions for Server 2008 R2, like RD RemoteFX. However, since 7 and R2 are basically one and the same, they are releasing the SP for 7 as well. There are a few under-the-hood tweaks too which haven't been released as Windows Updates, but there are very few. I've been running the leaked SP1 and tbh I can't really tell the difference. Might try it with an R2 install after my exams.

Another reason for SP1 to basically just incorporate all the old updates is that corporate environments (as mentioned above) typically don't update often (hence the IE6) and thus won't have many, if any, updates installed if they were running Win7.

Thus, with Win7 + SP1 they can either go from Win7 + 0 --> Win7 + SP1 have a uniform update status across the environment, or buy into Win7 now and instantly be up-to-date and uniform across the board (until SP2 is released).

We've just started running Win7 here, but at 50 odd users we're hardly corporate. Mind you, we avoided Vista like the plague.
I don't know about other sys admins, but my users are all up to date, because I'm running a WSUS server (turns out that M$ make some bloody fantastic business products, who knew?).

Originally Posted by phuzz.... (turns out that M$ make some bloody fantastic business products, who knew?).

They've always managed to quietly hide away the good stuff under a camouflage net of mediocrity, and about two dozen wholly unrelated websites.

WSUS sounds like an absolute god send, to be able to centrally download, review, and apply Windows updates sounds a far better option than the alternatives of, just not doing them, updating each machine manually, or just letting the updates happen.

----

Having service pack one so "soon" after release isn't really a massive problem, having it go though beta in, say, companies who have been previously been holding back from upgrading. Is a good thing as it could be used to address issues which have been making them hold back thus far, barring the inevitable issues of budget, or the simple incompatibility of bespoke systems.

I am looking forward to this SP 1 not because I am waiting for MS to get it right but because it will bring luddites who subscribe to the "wait for sp1" into Win7, and therefore move computer gaming forward.

Originally Posted by Redbeaverif they fix many of the networking bugs with this SP, corporate businesses will definitely make the leap of faith...

you mean something that would knock my ping of 101 in Counter Strike Source down to what it should considering im running a 40/5 internet connection and hardware that should run Crysis 2 at least on high?

Windows 7 doesn't offer anything that would make my system better in any way and aslong as M$ doesn't release a magical service pack for Windows 7, that will make it use less ressources then my dusty WinXP Pro I've no intent of buying it.
After booting my WinXP Pro has 28 processes running while using some 280 MB of RAM. If Win7 doesn't come close to this, I rather wait to buy a new OS until there's no possibility to go with WinXP Pro anymore.

Oh yeah... Win7 has DirectX 10 and 11 right? Show me real software (not games!) that makes any good use of it, then it might be an argument.

Seriously... M$ hasn't managed to release a better OS since WinXP or made any useful improvements besides DX10 or 11... and they could've released DX10 and 11 aswell for XP if they wanted to.

If M$ wants some money again from me, then they need to do much better then what they did for the last 8 years.

But it's not only M$, that doesn't release any real improved software or OS for the last years... Adobe CS3 was the last thing I bought (upgraded to it from PS7, and Macromedia MX, after Adobe bought Macromedia and incorporated all roducts in one package), Apple didn't release any real improvements of MacOS after version 10.2, when the introduced Quartz-technology etc etc etc...

The only software that seems to really have improved over the last 5 years is the WebBrowsers and media-players, but anything else... meh.

Windows 7 doesn't offer anything that would make my system better in any way and aslong as M$ doesn't release a magical service pack for Windows 7, that will make it use less ressources then my dusty WinXP Pro I've no intent of buying it.
After booting my WinXP Pro has 28 processes running while using some 280 MB of RAM. If Win7 doesn't come close to this, I rather wait to buy a new OS until there's no possibility to go with WinXP Pro anymore.

The RAM usage argument is generally laughable at best. If XP works fine for you and you see no usability or productivity improvements then thats fine. Moaning about RAM usage is just stupid. If the RAM isn't being used then you are slowing down the computer anyway by not loading things into the RAM.

Originally Posted by jrs77But it's not only M$, that doesn't release any real improved software or OS for the last years... Adobe CS3 was the last thing I bought (upgraded to it from PS7, and Macromedia MX, after Adobe bought Macromedia and incorporated all roducts in one package), Apple didn't release any real improvements of MacOS after version 10.2, when the introduced Quartz-technology etc etc etc...

I think Adobe is the worst as far as not really adding anything new. You comment on Apple however, is not only misinformed, but patently wrong. Sorry, there might be a correlation here with your inability to see any improvements from xp to win7 and the evolution of OS X. You may be a power user and don't rely heavily on a gui, but that doesn't mean there aren't massive improvements to the UIs under the surface, that aren't obvious at first and which can massively ease workflows (at least in OS X) or make browsing a file system much less of a chore.

I was one of the unfortunate Vista buyers, and it blew compared to xp in some respects but was better in others. Win 7 is in all ways superior to xp, by any metric (unless you count base RAM usage, which as someone pointed out is largely irrelevant nowadays as unused RAM is wasted RAM not some sort of efficiency metric). Vista was a hog, but Win7 is far more than just Vista SP4...

I'm still on a P3 866mhz, 512SDRam...
My company only changes pc's in 10-12 years... We have around 800 pc's all around the place, and for the IT is easier to have one model of a pc to make images of the sistem to restaure them very fast.
Win2K is still good, the problem is really IE6, that crashes aloot...
Maybe next year I'll have a Core i5 and 4Gb DDR3 and Win7 :)

Windows 7 doesn't offer anything that would make my system better in any way and aslong as M$ doesn't release a magical service pack for Windows 7, that will make it use less ressources then my dusty WinXP Pro I've no intent of buying it.
After booting my WinXP Pro has 28 processes running while using some 280 MB of RAM. If Win7 doesn't come close to this, I rather wait to buy a new OS until there's no possibility to go with WinXP Pro anymore.

Oh yeah... Win7 has DirectX 10 and 11 right? Show me real software (not games!) that makes any good use of it, then it might be an argument.

Seriously... M$ hasn't managed to release a better OS since WinXP or made any useful improvements besides DX10 or 11... and they could've released DX10 and 11 aswell for XP if they wanted to.

If M$ wants some money again from me, then they need to do much better then what they did for the last 8 years.

But it's not only M$, that doesn't release any real improved software or OS for the last years... Adobe CS3 was the last thing I bought (upgraded to it from PS7, and Macromedia MX, after Adobe bought Macromedia and incorporated all roducts in one package), Apple didn't release any real improvements of MacOS after version 10.2, when the introduced Quartz-technology etc etc etc...

The only software that seems to really have improved over the last 5 years is the WebBrowsers and media-players, but anything else... meh.

I thought that too. But Windows Snap on win7 is a godsend - a feature I use so regularly, it's unbelievable. I was hardcore XP, until I got a chance to use win7 and picked it up in a heartbeat. The only main issue I have is that I can't make the start menu back to Win95 style - the other style still grinds my gears.

Using an SSD and a nice i7 OC, the speed * functionality seems a lot better than normal or a stripped XP ever did.

Low RAM usage by XP means there's more RAM for your applications...so I wouldn't completely argue against it.
Next Build will get Win7, as I do care about games and therefore DX11:D, but for an older computer, XP will suffice.

Originally Posted by XirLow RAM usage by XP means there's more RAM for your applications...so I wouldn't completely argue against it.

A lot of the RAM usage is caching and pre-fetching of stuff. Even if you disable that stuff the RAM usage is still a lot higher but if your system is that starved for RAM then I would say that it isn't worth running Windows 7 on it. If you have something like 3-4GB RAM sitting there doing nothing on XP then it really doesn't make sense to use XP. If you want something lightweight on RAM usage yet still a modern OS then I recommend Ubuntu over Win 7 Starter.

Exactly my point, on an old computer, XP may have benefits.
And having as much RAM free is handy if you use specific RAM-hungry applications. Photoshop comes to mind...3DS-Max, all kinds of CAD programmes.
(which is why ubuntu is not an alternative....alas)

Originally Posted by XirLow RAM usage by XP means there's more RAM for your applications...so I wouldn't completely argue against it.

Win 7 only use lots of RAM when other apps don't need it. I upgraded from XP on 2GB to Win7 on 2GB and my computer is now much nippier, just because Win7 uses the memory so much more intelligently than XP did.

That, plus Windows Snap, stacked icons in the taskbar and Windows Search makes Win7 much more enjoyable to use than XP. Plus, it looks so much prettier.

For the people who don't understand that an OS should use as little RAM as possible...

You people most llikely play games or surf the internet, watch some videos or listen to musik etc... RAM is not an issue in that secenario.

Now, I'm still working as a graphics-designer. So take Photoshop for example and open a 500 MB Photoshop-document... you wan't to have every little bit of RAM shifted to Photoshop for sure. Same goes for Illustrator or InDesign aswell.

I have a MacBook Pro aswell, and have worked with MacOS since the days of the Mac II SE, so I've a strong and informed oppionon about MacOS aswell. Now, if you think that MacOS X has really improved after 10.2, then tell me where, and don't come with BS like UI, which is nothing of interest for me.

Yes, I'm a poweruser! I don't need any fancy stuff that let's me position windows automatically, or whatever. I wan't an OS that uses as little ressources as possible and let me install the software and drivers I need to work with my machine. A stable filesystem ontop and the basics known since Win3.11 and we're done.

More and more fancy stuff adds mor and more problems. Does Win7 let me make a custom install, without any fancy stuff but oldschool Win95-style... NO? What a waste of code!

jrs77, being a graphic designer myself I humbly disagree (again). Yes the Finder sucks and always has since 10.2, which was in my opinion the first usable version of OS X. But there have been a number of MAJOR changes to OS X since 10.2, which is why its nearly all applications now REQUIRE 10.5 or higher. Keep in mind 10.2 came out in 2002. Did you just decide in 2003 that you were never going to buy another OS again and now you are left with XP an 10.2? I understand someone preferring certain aspects of an older system to a newer one, Apple never gets everything right and there have been some unfortunate regressions in some of the newer versions, but RAM footprint hasn't budged a whole lot since 10.2 but we now have 10.6 which is eminently more usable than 10.2, though actually slower at this point than 10.5 because of the extensive rewrite to 64-bit.

You seem to be preferring an older system (which wont run on a MacBook Pro btw so...) but you think that 10.6, while using more ram that 10.2 wont handle RAM allocation better? Or be more efficient under the hood. I am running 9 gigs on my MacPro so a 500mb image doesn't pose any problems on my setup. I've worked with images that size on a number of older systems, G4 powerbook, g5 Tower, etc, and not once has a system hiccupped with an image of that size, so unless you are running 2 gigs of ram or less I don't see what your beef with newer OSes is.

I get your point about low RAM usage being better and to a certain extent I agree, but when you can buy 8GB of RAM these days for around $200 I am not sure if your point has much merit.

Originally Posted by ChuckyP83jrs77, being a graphic designer myself I humbly disagree (again). Yes the Finder sucks and always has since 10.2, which was in my opinion the first usable version of OS X. But there have been a number of MAJOR changes to OS X since 10.2, which is why its nearly all applications now REQUIRE 10.5 or higher. Keep in mind 10.2 came out in 2002. Did you just decide in 2003 that you were never going to buy another OS again and now you are left with XP an 10.2? I understand someone preferring certain aspects of an older system to a newer one, Apple never gets everything right and there have been some unfortunate regressions in some of the newer versions, but RAM footprint hasn't budged a whole lot since 10.2 but we now have 10.6 which is eminently more usable than 10.2, though actually slower at this point than 10.5 because of the extensive rewrite to 64-bit.

You seem to be preferring an older system (which wont run on a MacBook Pro btw so...) but you think that 10.6, while using more ram that 10.2 wont handle RAM allocation better? Or be more efficient under the hood. I am running 9 gigs on my MacPro so a 500mb image doesn't pose any problems on my setup. I've worked with images that size on a number of older systems, G4 powerbook, g5 Tower, etc, and not once has a system hiccupped with an image of that size, so unless you are running 2 gigs of ram or less I don't see what your beef with newer OSes is.

I get your point about low RAM usage being better and to a certain extent I agree, but when you can buy 8GB of RAM these days for around $200 I am not sure if your point has much merit.

My MacBook Pro is running on 10.5, as it was delivered with it. My old Powerbook is running on 10.2 and I can compare the two versions that way.
In terms of usability there's nothing changed, and 10.2 runs all the software that it needs to, just like the newer 10.5, allthough 10.5 is a little more ressource-hungry. That's what I've a problem with. Why does it need to use more ressources, while not offering anything really more?

Same goes for WinXP vs. Win7. Win7 doesn't offer anything more then WinXP when we're discarding DX10+11, but uses twice the ressources.

And yeah, sure I could buy bigger and bigger hardware, but in my oppinion that's the totally wrong way to approach things.

Look at anything else... the trend goes to use less and less ressources... only the OS (all of them, Windows, MacOS and even Linux-distributions) use more and more ressources.
Sorry, but I can't accept this by default. Software needs to be more efficient, not more bloated with fancy stuff that I don't need.

The only way to use less resources is to cull functionality. You can optimise to an extent but adding features will always take up more RAM and more CPU time. There have also been plenty of improvements in Windows, OSX and Linux over the years, if you want to discard them then that is your choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrs77Software needs to be more efficient, not more bloated with fancy stuff that I don't need.

The efficiency of software doesn't really relate to RAM use at all. I could make a graphics manipulation program that uses 1MB memory but it wouldn't be very efficient at creating images. You will be waiting forever for your next OS upgrade because your expectations are unrealistic.

Look at anything else... the trend goes to use less and less ressources... only the OS (all of them, Windows, MacOS and even Linux-distributions) use more and more ressources.
Sorry, but I can't accept this by default. Software needs to be more efficient, not more bloated with fancy stuff that I don't need.

They all cache a lot more RAM now, but should you want to open your 500mb photoshop file, Vista, its expensive service pack, OSX and Linux will invariably give it all back.

Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.